James Niles v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2001
• Docket: 13-00-00229-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-229-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

JAMES NILES

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 347^th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Yañez, and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Castillo

This is an appeal of the revocation of appellant James Niles's community supervision. Niles pled guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was placed on ten years deferred adjudication in May of 1999. A motion to revoke probation and adjudicate guilt was subsequently filed and, at the hearing on the motion, Niles pled true to all the allegations therein. The court revoked his probation, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to ten years incarceration in the penitentiary.

Niles's counsel on appeal has filed a brief purporting to comply with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she concludes that there is no reversible error reflected by the record. Niles has filed a pro se brief, after being informed of his right to do so, in which he asks for mercy and a reinstatement of his probation but raises no legal issues for our review.

It is well settled that no appeal may be taken of a trial court's determination to adjudicate guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 42.12 §5(b)(Vernon Supp. 2000); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). A defendant does have a limited right to challenge errors made following a determination to adjudicate. See Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

In the instant case, neither Niles nor his appellate counsel present any errors, nor do they raise any grounds for which this Court would have jurisdiction. We have carefully reviewed the record and both briefs and agree with Niles's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction and, accordingly, we dismiss. ERRLINDA CASTILLO,

Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 22^nd day of February, 2001.